DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Crowsbreast, 629 N.W.2d 433.

191 citing documents.

  • State v. Vance 734 N.W.2d 650 Minn. 2007
  • State v. Vance 734 N.W.2d 650 Minn. 2007
  • State v. Pendleton 725 N.W.2d 717 Minn. 2007
  • State v. Pendleton 725 N.W.2d 717 Minn. 2007
    A party is prohibited from “ ‘assigning] as error any portion of the charge or omission’ unless the party objects to the instructions before they are given to the jury.” (quoting Minn. R.Crim.
  • State v. Meldrum 724 N.W.2d 15 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
  • State v. Meldrum 724 N.W.2d 15 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
    Absent an objection at district court, an appellate court may only review for “plain error.” see Minn. R.Crim.
  • State v. Goodloe 718 N.W.2d 413 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Goodloe 718 N.W.2d 413 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Osborne 715 N.W.2d 436 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Laine 715 N.W.2d 425 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Laine 715 N.W.2d 425 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Barnes 713 N.W.2d 325 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Barnes 713 N.W.2d 325 Minn. 2006
    (upholding an identical element from the first-degree child abuse murder statute).
  • State v. MacLennan 702 N.W.2d 219 Minn. 2005
  • State v. MacLennan 702 N.W.2d 219 Minn. 2005
    If these three requirements are satisfied, the appellate court may correct the error only if the error “seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” (quoting Johnson, 520 U.S. at 467 , 117 S.Ct.
  • State v. Earl 702 N.W.2d 711 Minn. 2005
  • State v. Earl 702 N.W.2d 711 Minn. 2005
  • State v. Palubicki 700 N.W.2d 476 Minn. 2005
  • State v. Palubicki 700 N.W.2d 476 Minn. 2005
    “If those three prongs are met, we may correct the error only if it ‘seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’ ” (quoting Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 467 , 117 S.Ct.
  • State v. Leake 699 N.W.2d 312 Minn. 2005
  • State v. Leake 699 N.W.2d 312 Minn. 2005
    -40 (Minn.2001); -51 (Minn.1996); -95 (Minn.1990) (Moore II, unrelated to Moore I).
  • State v. Washington 693 N.W.2d 195 Minn. 2005
  • State v. Washington 693 N.W.2d 195 Minn. 2005
  • State v. Washington 693 N.W.2d 195 Minn. 2005
    If those three prongs are met, we may correct the error only if it “seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” (quoting Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 466-67 , 117 S.Ct.
  • State v. Washington 693 N.W.2d 195 Minn. 2005
    State v. Crowsbreast , , 437 (Minn. 2001) (quoting Johnson v. United States , 520 U.S. 461 , 466-67 , 117 S.Ct.
  • State v. Sanchez-Diaz 683 N.W.2d 824 Minn. 2004
  • State v. Sanchez-Diaz 683 N.W.2d 824 Minn. 2004
    Jurors “are not required to unanimously agree on which acts comprised the past pattern of domestic abuse.”
  • State v. Gutierrez 667 N.W.2d 426 Minn. 2003
  • State v. Gutierrez 667 N.W.2d 426 Minn. 2003
  • State v. Baird 654 N.W.2d 105 Minn. 2002
  • State v. Baird 654 N.W.2d 105 Minn. 2002
  • State v. Strommen 648 N.W.2d 681 Minn. 2002
  • State v. Kelbel 648 N.W.2d 690 Minn. 2002
  • State v. Strommen 648 N.W.2d 681 Minn. 2002
    “If those three prongs are met, we may correct the error only if it ‘seriously affeet[s] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’ ” (quoting Johnson, 520 U.S. at 467 , 117 S.Ct.
  • State v. Kelbel 648 N.W.2d 690 Minn. 2002
    In a memorandum of law accompanying its order, the court explained that it rejected Kelbel’s
  • State v. Colvin 645 N.W.2d 449 Minn. 2002
  • State v. Ihle 640 N.W.2d 910 Minn. 2002
  • State v. Ihle 640 N.W.2d 910 Minn. 2002
    (holding that jurors are not required to unanimously agree on which *919 acts comprised the past pattern of domestic abuse).
  • State v. Glowacki 630 N.W.2d 392 Minn. 2001
  • State v. Gillam 629 N.W.2d 440 Minn. 2001
  • State v. Glowacki 630 N.W.2d 392 Minn. 2001
    State v. Crowsbreast, — Minn. -